On the significance of UN Global Conferences

When the record of the United Nations during its first half-century of existence is remembered in history, the continuum of UN-sponsored global conferences from the "Children's Summit in 1990 to the City Summit in 1996" will emerge as perhaps the most important contribution of the organized world community to the furtherance of human well-being. Neither mentioned nor foreseen in the Charter of the United Nations, these global conferences represent a notable example of innovation that is possible within the framework of the Charter to meet the challenges posed by changing conditions and circumstances in the world.

The global conferences have been criticized by some as nefarious intrusions in the domestic affairs of states and as wasteful jamborees. The charge of intrusion is patently false. The conferences hardly seek to impose anything on the UN's member-states and their governments whose representatives in the General Assembly convened the conferences. The intention of the conferences is to point out problems confronting most of humanity; how these problems are being dealt with by people in different environmental, cultural and developmental settings; and how, disparate people can learn from each other's experience. Because these global conferences bring people together in the form of non- governmental organizations, they may appear to take on a carnival atmosphere. However, this should not be interpreted as a manifestation of aimless and mindless posturing. The presence of these non- governmental actors actually reflects the seriousness with which people from many differing walks of life view the issue at hand.

In the mid-nineteenth century, it was observed that the difference between the 18th and 19th century, in terms of development, technology and human change in the "westernized" part of the world, was greater than all the growth accumulated between the 1st and 18th centuries. As the 20th century comes to a close, the pace of change has accelerated not only in the western world but throughout the globe. The differences which in the past evolved over the course of centuries now take place within decades. This represents a formidable challenge to human ingenuity to keep up with the relentless and punishing pace of global transformation. The UN Global conferences are crucial in helping the world cope with this challenge.

Benjamin Rivlin
Director

As Secretary-General I have placed great importance on international conferences as a way of raising the world's consciousness. International conferences are not a new idea; they have played a part in diplomacy since antiquity. But the conferences convened since 1992 represent something new and different. They are linked. They are cumulative. They foster global consensus on interlocking global issues. They generate specific commitments. And they provide a comprehensive framework for international action in fields that are drastically affected by the negative side of globalization: the environment and development (Rio de Janeiro, 1992), human rights (Vienna, 1993), natural disasters (Yokohan1a, 1994), population (Cairo, 1994), poverty, unemployment and social disruption (Copenhagen, 1995) the advancement of women (Beijing, 1995), housing (Istanbul, 1996).

Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali

Foreign Affairs, Vol.75, #2, March/April 1996.

Introduction

Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.
Albert Schweizer Professor Emeritus of Humanities
City University of New York Graduate School and University Center

This 50th anniversary is a curious moment in the history of the United Nations. The UN is very largely an American product. The vision of cooperative effort among the nations of the world to prevent and punish aggression was Woodrow Wilson's signal contribution to statesmanship - a vision given new life, after the failure of Wilson's League of Nations, by Franklin Roosevelt in the United Nations. Yet the UN's 50th anniversary is marked not just by the withdrawal of interest and support in the house of the founder but by active and systematic hostility. In 1957, a Republican Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, could say that the United States "has a strong interest in the early establishment of standby arrangements for a United Nations Peace Force." Compare that with the attitude of Dulles' party toward the UN today, and you will have a sense of the transformation of American attitudes toward this American child.

And it is not alone. The wrecking crew in Congress is withholding funds owed by the US to the UN and is seeking to cripple the UN in manifold other ways. Far beyond Washington, in the crazier parts of this bewildered and bewildering country, militia men anxiously scan the sky watching for black helicopters transporting a UN army that will, they believe, take away their guns and their liberties and impose world government on a hapless land.

The antagonism toward international cooperation is not altogether surprising. The US has been politically isolationist for most of its history. Only direct and palpable threats to its national security bring it into alliance with other countries. Once those threats disappear, it tends to revert to what seems to be its natural state. That is why FDR was so determined to tie the US into a structure of international action while the war was still on, instead of waiting, as Wilson had, till the war was over. People of Roosevelt's generation were haunted by the fear that the US would return to isolationism after the Second World War as it had done after the First. Remember that barely twenty years separated the two wars.

There are other factors. The UN was immobilized by the Cold War for most of its existence. With the end of the Cold War, the UN, as seen by right-wing members of Congress, is creating more problems than it is solving. And all countries, including the United States, rebel at the ultimate question raised by collective security military enforcement. It is very hard today for any democracy to call on young men and women to kill and die when the vital interests of their own country are not directly threatened to kill and die, not to protect their own land, but to promote some abstract vision of world order.

Polls continue to show nominal support for the UN. But that support is thin and weak compared to the intensity of the UN's opponents. Pollsters have not discovered satisfactory ways of measuring the intensity factor, and the intensity factor is very often decisive. Most Americans, for example, favor gun control, but their support is outweighed by the fierce minority who care more about their guns than about anything else. Senator Dole gets cheap laughs simply by pronouncing, or mispronouncing, the name of the Secretary General - and he is one of the most rational members of his party. Politicians find that attacks on the UN are cost free.

And support of the UN is not cost free because of the intensity factor. UN backers are thus thrown on the defensive. The Secretary of State in his Harvard speech of 18 January hardly mentioned the UN. Friends of the UN in Congress, like Lee Hamilton in the House and Nancy Kassebaum in the Senate, are often in retreat. In a joint statement last year, the two legislators said, "We fear that the United Nations is becoming little more than a road show traveling from conference to conference. If an issue is serious, a conference will not solve it; if it is not serious, a conference is a waste of time.... We propose ending UN sponsored conferences." The Secretary of State has called for "a moratorium on big UN conferences once the present series is completed."

This is not the unanimous view in Washington. Last October, when President Clinton came to New York, he congratulated the Secretary General on "the effort you have made, through the international conferences sponsored by the United Nations, to change the way we think and to deepen our understanding. From Rio to Vienna to Copenhagen to Cairo to Beijing, you have brought the peoples of the world together to help us to learn about one another and to change the way we imagine the future. And that, in the end, may be the most important legacy of the last few years."

Clearly the debate continues within the American government. One recalls Lord Keynes's comment when he came to Washington on a financial mission during the Second World War. At a meeting with leading members of the administration, Keynes heard the State Department make one point, the Treasury disagree and the Board of Economic Warfare offer still another position. Keynes finally said, "I am somewhat perplexed by your government's view of this matter; but then, of course, you do not have a government in the usual sense of the word."

Defenders of the UN point out that the conferences place vital issues on the world's agenda. Conferences promote the exchange of ideas. They advance both understanding and action on urgent common problems. They encourage international cooperation beyond governments. They develop popular backing for the UN. The UN does not have strong domestic constituencies, and conferences, by extending popular participation, may do much to produce and strengthen grassroots support.

Still the conferences raise questions regarding their utility, their expense, their interference in matters of national jurisdiction. Critics ask: why is not the General Assembly the proper forum for addressing these issues? Haven't we had too many conferences? Has not the time come to digest those we have had and to concentrate on carrying out resolutions adopted by earlier conferences?

To consider these questions, the Ralph Bunche Institute on the UN has assembled this impressively expert panel. The UN representatives are happily joined by a historian who knows far more about the UN than I do Paul Kennedy of Yale, co-author of an intelligent and influential recent report on the UN's future. I would like to begin by asking: Do conferences help or hurt the UN? Have they outlived their usefulness as UN instrumentalities, or are they potent means of UN influence? What is their contribution to carrying out the UN's mission and fulfilling the promise of the Charter?

Children's Summit

Mehr Khan
Director of Information
United Nation Children's Fund

I will begin by addressing Professor Schlesinger's question of whether such conferences contribute to carrying out the mission of the United Nations. In doing so I would like to take us back to the World Summit for Children (WSC) which was held in New York in September of 1990 to see what was achieved. More than 70 heads of state and government and some 160 countries participated in the meeting.

Recent summits have been part of a process of achieving the United Nations development agenda. The World Summit for Children built upon the 1 980's achievements in child survival and health which, together with the child survival and development effort, took immunization levels up from some 10 percent in the late 1910's to 80 percent in 1990. Over 40000 children in the developing world were dying every day from a lack of vaccines o essential nutrients, problems which had been largely dealt with in the industrialized world and were therefore mostly preventable.

In 1989, when the conference was proposed, it was clear that a final push was needed to get governments who were close to achieving the goal of Universal Child Immunization (UCI) to reach the target (80%) in 1990. It was also important to get enough governments to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which had been adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1989 so that it could come into force in 1990.

The convening of the World Summit For Children succeeded in both these objectives. As a result of all the efforts to increase immunization and prevent diarrhoeal deaths nearly three million fewer children now die each year. It also set the stage for\the adoption of a broader, more ambitious but achievable agenda for children. Universal Child Immunization had shown that the adoption of a clear and measurable goal underpinned by a political and public mobilization strategy could help to deliver significant progress.

At the World Summit For Children governments committed themselves to achieving important goals by the year 2000. These goals included the reduction of under-five deaths by a third; the reduction of maternal deaths in childbirth and related causes to half over 1990 levels; the elimination of such vaccine preventable diseases as measles and polio; a reduction of child malnutrition by half of the 1990 level and basic education for all children.

The World Summit For Children Declaration and Plan of Action was signed by all participating governments and has since been signed by nearly all governments. National Plans of Action have been drawn up by more than 100 governments and drafts are in preparation in most others. In many cases, countries have drawn up subnational plans detailing action at the regional and local levels. More than 80% of the world's children now live in countries which have adopted these plans. Governments and NGOs are taking the plans very seriously as they undergo revision for renewal.

Subsequently, governments agreed to establish mid decade goals for achievement by 1995. These goals include the reduction of measles deaths by 95 percent; the elimination of polio in selected countries and regions; the virtual elimination of vitamin A deficiency; the universal iodization of salt, etc. While the score card for the achievement of these mid decade goals is still being compiled, it is clear that many of the goals will be either achieved or come close to achievement. For example, one of the mid decade goals was the universal ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. So far, 18 7 countries have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child with only six remaining.

The Summit recognized the importance of monitoring these goals. While governments are responsible for their monitoring, the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) began to issue a new publication called Progress of Nations which advocates for these goals and reports on progress achieved. Thus, the pressure is being kept up on governments to live up to the commitments made in 1990.

The Summit's achievements to date can be measured in the lives of children, millions of whom are living more productive lives, freer of physical and mental disability. Progress in each of these reduces poverty.

The development agenda is interlinked. Success in one area leads to the achievement of the overall objective: improved human development. World Summit For Children goals have been adopted by each of the major development summits which have followed, building on the successes and the lessons learned.

The achievements of Universal Child Immunization have allowed developing countries to build a better health infrastructure with more trained health workers available who can help to go beyond vaccination to the delivery of other essential health services and care.

Putting girls in school was a major objective of the World Summit For Children. Education is one of the most critical areas of empowerment for women. The achievement of this objective would allow the fulfillment of a basic human right. It would also lead to fewer and healthier children and an increase in family income.

Summits and major conferences help to generate a better public understanding of important problems and issues; they lead to consensus and agreement on solutions, and generate commitments for action.

Population

Jyoti Shankar Singh
Deputy Executive Director
United Nations Population Fund

It is an honor and a privilege for me to be here today, on behalf of Dr. Nafis Sadik, Executive Director of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and Secretary General of the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) held in Cairo, Egypt in September 1994.

The International Conference on Population and Development was the third inter-governmental population conference organized by the United Nations--the first was held in Bucharest in 1974, the second took place in Mexico City in 1984. Part of the reason for organizing such a conference every ten years was to provide the international community with an opportunity to discuss the current situation in the field of population.

But the International Conference on Population and Development was also part of a series of conferences held in the early 1 990s by the United Nations to advance the economic and social agenda of the international community, and in that sense the International Conference on Population and Development also built upon the recommendations that came out of the Education for All Conference in 19907 the 1990 Children's Summit, the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in 1992, as well as the Human Rights Conference in Vienna in 199. In turn, the 1995 World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen and the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing built upon the work and accomplishments of the International Conference on Population and Development. Hopefully, Habitat II, which will be held in Istanbul this June, will also give adequate attention to the population dimension.

What the Cairo Conference achieved first of all was to provide evidence of what was already being done by the UN. Secondly, it shifted the focus of the population debate from demographic concerns and discussions to one that focuses on the needs and concerns of human beings, without undermining the responsibilities and sovereignty of governments. The stated position at Cairo was that population policies should reflect the concerns and aspirations of people. And that was a quantum leap forward from the thinking on population issues that was reflected in Bucharest and to some extent also in Mexico City.

Following that transformation in thinking, human well being in general and the empowerment of women in particular have become the central focus of the UN's development efforts. The International Conference on Population and Development built on the concept of a right to lead a healthy and productive life, but expanded that concept to include reproductive health and reproductive rights, and I think that made a major contribution to the final success of the International Conference on Population and Development. The Cairo Conference also made a contribution towards further involvement of civil society in achieving sustainable development. Another topic that came to the fore during the International Conference on Population and Development was the role of men in matters such as parenting and family planning; population conferences had always emphasized the role of women in population matters, but never the role and responsibilities of men.

The International Conference on Population and Development provided the international community with a road map towards population stabilization by focusing on people centered development. The Conference laid down a very clear and specific timetable for a number of interconnected quantitative goals in the areas of health, reproductive health/family planning and education, to be achieved over a 20 year period. These goals were reaffirmed by the Social Summit in Copenhagen and the Women's Conference in Beijing last year and will hopefully also be included in the final outcome of Habitat II later this year.

The International Conference on Population and Development also provided a very clear and specific set of goals for funding of population programs in the order of US$17 billion in the year 2000, increasing to US$2 1. 7 billion in 2015. It was agreed that up to two-third of the costs were needed to be generated by developing countries and countries with economies in transition themselves and that the remaining one third of these costs needed to come from the international community. [n this particular conference, the participants were not simply appealing for funding from international sources. The countries discussed what was being done at the national level and how much more money and resources could be mobilized by the developing countries themselves. The Conference asked the international community to provide the remaining resources needed on a supplementary basis.

Additional issues the conference had to focus on were the needs of adolescents and the empowerment of women in order to advance their roles, and on the role of NGOs in population and development activities both at the national and international levels. The International Conference on Population and Development was able to forge a consensus on a wide variety of challenging issues, which was remarkable and had never happened before in a conference dealing with population issues. Despite all the controversy surrounding the conference and the sometimes painstaking negotiations, what came out of Cairo was a consensus to which everybody contributed. This has not always been the case at international conferences.

A last point I want to make regards the follow up to the Cairo Conference. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has established a machinery for cooperation at the inter agency level, meaning among the different UN agencies involved in the field of social development, that should ensure that what was said and done in Cairo is also implemented. This cooperation could serve as a blueprint for action that may be used and followed at the national level, supported by NGOs. We can already see a number of changes that have taken place since the International Conference on Population and Development and the other UN conferences. The totality of those conferences and the actions taken in follow up to these conferences organized by the UN will in a sense put together an agenda for action, particularly in the social sector, that will indeed be a framework for action in the UN for the next 20 years.

Human Rights

Elissavet Stamatopoulou
Deputy Chief of the Center for Human Rights

The major contribution of the World Conference on Human Rights (WCHR) was that it clearly placed human rights at the top of the international agenda, thus fulfilling the very word of the Charter according to which the promotion of human rights is one of the four basic aims of the Organization. Since the 1993 World Conference and the establishment of the new institution of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR), we have witnessed an expansion of the profile and integration of human rights in several areas.

First, the World Conference contributed to the debate on the question of universality of human rights, placing the issue squarely on the table. It reiterated that "the promotion and protection of all human rights is a legitimate concern of the international community" noting that "all human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated... At the same time it recognized that "while the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms."

Universality calls for universal ratification of the major human rights treaties:

• The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
• The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
• Convention against Torture
• Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (2000)
• Convention on the Rights of the Child (1995)

Second, the right to development was recognized boldly as a universal and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights (for the first time by all states, including the USA).

Third, the link was made between democracy, development and human rights which were declared as interdependent and mutually reinforcing. The World Conference called upon international and regional financial institutions to assess the impact of their policies and programs on the enjoyment of human rights.

Fourth, a clear link was made between peace and human rights. The World Conference recognized the important role of human rights components in some peacekeeping operations and recommended to the Secretary General to take into account the reporting, experience and capabilities of the Center for Human Rights and human rights mechanisms.

Fifth, institution building at the national level with UN help as needed was proclaimed as a major aim. All governments were called upon to prepare comprehensive national plans for the promotion and protection of human rights. Human rights education was recognized as a major tool.

Sixth, the principles of objectivity, nonselectivity and impartiality were proclaimed.

Seventh, women's rights as human rights were recognized, emphasizing:

1. integration and mainstreaming of women's rights into UN human rights mechanisms

2. violence against women as a human rights issue, whether in the private or the public life

3. call for the eradication of conflicts which may arise between the rights of women and the harmful effects of certain traditional and customary practices, cultural prejudices and religious extremism

Eighth, minorities and indigenous people were recognized. Special emphasis was placed on

1. establishing arrangements and mediating solutions

2. establishing human rights institutions

3. working towards a permanent forum for indigenous people

4. Decade of the World's Indigenous People.

Ninth, the World Conference called for a substantial increase in resources for human rights. Tenth, the World Conference opened the way for the establishment of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and an International Criminal Tribunal.

Environment

Nitin Desai
UN Under-Secretary-General for Policy
Coordination and Sustainable Development

What I have been called here for is to talk about the mother of all conferences the Earth Summit in Rio, the one which started it all. But I will also speak as organizer of the Copenhagen conference and as the head of the Department of which the Beijing Conference Secretariat was a part.

The question we must address is not so much what was new, but why is it that we have had a very intensive conference process during the 1990s, and what is the function that this process plays in the structure of international relations. Basically what the world was looking for was a political process of policy development amongst governments which had credibility in the eyes of capitals which would warrant serious participation from capitals; one which had credibility in the eyes of the many segments of civil society, NGOs, and the more organized segments of civil society, which are much more influential in the 90s than they were in the 60s, or 70s or even the 80s.

The fact is that our standing political processes are not well designed for this purpose. They are processes run mainly by ministries of external affairs, by state departments, and foreign affairs departments. If you want policy development on issues that involve the entire population, or human rights, or equality, or poverty and unemployment, anything you do at the global level will not have credibility unless it involves people responsible for these policies at the national level.

One of the main motivations behind the conference process has come from capitals. They wanted a formal process in which the ministries who are concerned with these issues at the national level could participate more effectively. It isn't always that obvious in the United States because it is the one country where participation in these global conferences is mediated from the State Department; in most other countries direct participation is by the concerned ministry, which is responsible for policy. That is one important reason why we have this process.

Another reason is the participation of NGOs and civil society. The scale at which these conferences have involved NGOs and the organized segments of civil society is truly unprecedented. In fact, you will find that the conferences have defined a new type of political process - a process which is open, where anybody who feels that he or she has a concern, an interest, a point of view to express is given an opportunity to do so. It is also important because we are living in a time when normal political processes have lost credibility in the eyes of the people. I believe the conference processes have tried to get over this problem by basically opening their doors to people. I think it is a new type of political process. We can look back at these conferences with hindsight and we will see that this dimension of the process the way it sought to bring together governmental actors, and non-governmental actors in building common consensus - is credible. This is perhaps the most valuable part of conferences.

All this happened in the 90s because had lost our moorings on policy development. We were all operating in an environment that was radically different - a shift to market based developments, globalization, and the collapse of communism.

What these UN conferences have tried to do has been to define a role of public policy in this changed environment by identifying areas where there is a continuing case for action by governments at the national level and by the world community acting through governments and non- governmental organizations.

And this is what happened in Rio because environment and sustainability cannot be left to markets. This is what happened in Copenhagen because poverty eradication, and the maintenance of high levels of employment is something that governments wanted to address separately and attentively. This is what happened in Cairo - population control is not something that can be left to long processes of development but needs active intervention by government. This is what happened in Beijing because the advancement of women requires active intervention by governments, legislation and other measures. And I believe it is the same when it comes to human rights.

So in a sense, all this happened in the 90s precisely because it is in the 90s that we are looking for a paradigm, not just for development; a paradigm for what is the legitimate roll of public policy at the national, regional and international level.

Rio was a trend-setter by taking the problem of the environment and converting it from a problem which was purely a sectoral issue dealing with pollution to something that was imbedded in the overall Framework of development and economic policy. That is how the notion of sustainable development was born.

People talk about the costs of conferences. Lots of numbers are floating around. Let me specify as someone who was responsible for three of them. The bulk of the cost of the conferences is not borne by the UN. It is borne by the host country. The UN pays just a small part of the costs of the staff support which is provided for the substantive preparations even the travel of staff is paid for by the host country.

I do not think a democratic process can be judged just in terms of how much it costs. A democratic process must be judged in terms of its effectiveness, in terms of its success, in giving people a sense of involvement, participation and influence on the matters which affect them. On that count I believe these conferences have succeeded enormously, because our standing political processes with the best will in the world are not designed for this type of involvement of people on these issues. But the UN conferences were designed for that purpose and succeeded in getting the participation of those actors.

Whatever evidence we have of the follow-up of these proven conferences suggests that the commitment of these people to their implementation is enormous. Two thousand municipalities now have formulated their own versions of agenda 21. Why are they doing this? Because they were involved in the shaping of the agenda they feel that the agenda is theirs; ten thousand school children have been working year after year on the follow up to Agenda 21. I would urge you not to see the conference processes as simply another way of having a UN meeting. The conferences were a completely different type of political process. Their political logic is quite different from the standing political processes of the UN, and they should be judged in terms of their effectiveness in giving people a sense of involvement, of participation, and of changing the way they think about problems.

Women

John Mathiason
Deputy Director
Division for The Advancement of Women

It is always a daunting task to follow Mr. Desai, for whom I work and who has given his usual masterful explanation of the linkages among many of the major conferences. I will concentrate on only one of the conferences, the Fourth World Conference on Women

Let me start by placing the Fourth World Conference on women in context. As a starting point, let me assert that one of the clear functions that is expected to be performed by the United Nations is the articulation of universal norms which, if they can be expressed clearly and properly, will lead to changes in both societal and individual behavior which in turn will lead to the achievement of other objectives.

The United Nations Charter itself contains in its preamble only one goal whose achievement would be clearly measurable. That is the goal "to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small." In fact, the organization over the past fifty years has worked steadily towards achieving that objective.

The nature of this United Nations work is conditioned by the nature of an organization which has no sovereign and therefore no formal enforcement power. Its main instrument to achieve the articulation of these universal norms is legitimacy. Legitimate power is that where something is done, not because of coercion or economic incentives, but rather because it is the right thing to do. It is the least costly and most effective kind of power, because works in the minds of women and men.

How is that legitimacy determined? In an intergovernmental environment legitimacy is given because governments come together and agree on what is right. Indeed this is one of the main reasons that most decision making in the United Nations is by consensus: unless all parties agree on what is right, what is decided will not be legitimate for all of the States.

Achieving equal rights for women and men is clearly an ambitious target. In 1945 only about half of the signers of the Charter gave women an unrestricted right to vote and hold public office. Over the fifty years of pursuing the goal, it has become one of the success stories of the Organization. Any comparison between the status of women today and in 1945 will clearly demonstrate that there have been tremendous changes.

Can you attribute those changes to the United Nations? It is always hard to draw plausible causal inferences between what the Organization does and the places where the changes really occurred, in the home the workplace and the community. But there is no doubt that the United Nations was associated with those changes.

The mechanism used at the United Nations level for women, and for men who supported equal rights for women, was to use the United Nations in order to bypass the obvious constraints that they faced in their own societies. This was by taking advantage of the ability of the United Nations to articulate the values of equality and thereby to embarrass their own governments into taking the policy steps necessary to achieve the goal. Early on, the Commission on the Status of Women was the only United Nations body most of whose members were women. Indeed even if you look at the composition of inter-governmental decision-making bodies today, the proportion of women would be very small. For example, only 18% of the diplomats in the permanent missions to the United Nations in New York are women. If someone had called the Beijing Conference "the women s summit" and you view talking about women elected heads of state or government, the "summit" could have been held in a very small conference room or a large closet (on average, over the past six years there have only been about seven elected women heads of state or government at any one time).

So, to summarize the context: women have been trying, along with their male supporters, to use the ability of the United Nations to articulate values of equality as a means to achieve the goal at the national level.

Now let me turn to conferences. Why do we have them? The Commission on the Status of Women will be holding its fortieth session this year. That means that this will be the fortieth time that the values of equality will be articulated by a functional commission of The Economic and Social Council. But those forty meetings are not enough. It is very hard to mobilize people at the grass roots around the work of a functional commission, I am sorry to say.

It was decided around 1975, International Women's Year, that a conference would be a good vehicle for focusing attention on the issue of advancement of women. A conference provides an excuse for thinking about an issue.

With regard to the Fourth World Conference on Women, I can tell you that when the planning began for the conference, it was expected to be a very small scale event. But I can also tell you that in the Secretariat we were convinced that unless some event was organized around which to focus attention, the results of the Third World Conference on women would not be followed up.

So, in a funny way, the Beijing Conference was the first United Nations conference planned on the premise that the means justified the end. The conference existed to provide an incentive for its preparations.

I do know frown talking to non- governmental organization representatives that for them the existence of the conference provided the leverage to obtain public funds, and to mobilize people to get on government delegations, to be able to articulate new ideas. It provided an incentive to undertake national diagnoses of what was wrong and what was right with the situation of women. And in that sense, the Conference was a success, even before it was held.

The Beijing Conference was also the first conference authorized in the l990's, after the previous period of "conference fatigue". (I suspect that the next women's conference, if we need it, will break the current cycle of conference fatigue). When it was authorized, the General Assembly added the usual stipulation that it be held "at the lowest possible cost." We thought about that some. The lowest possible cost would be for nothing, which would be an interesting approach to the cost question.

There was never any doubt in the minds of the Secretariat from the very beginning that this conference would be a success. We would have had to work overtime to make it a failure. The momentum that would guarantee success was clearly present in civil society, in the women who saw the conference as an opportunity to make that vital next step in the universal march forward towards achieving the goal.

And it was a success. It was the largest United Nations conference ever held and I do not know if that record will ever be beaten.

It was the fifth conference in the series of main UN events of the 1 990's. Women had had a major involvement in the preceding conferences, as has already been mentioned. 13ut Beijing took the agreements of the previous conferences one step further by concentrating on their applicability to women and on the relations between women and men.

If it were to be compared with the other United Nations women's conferences, it would have to be stated that it was the first which really dealt with gender the relationship between men and women. Women were not seen as an issue in isolation, implying that all other issues were not women's issues (and, therefore, by process of elimination, were men's issues). It was the first conference that looked at women's issues within their larger, mainstream context.

It was, in many ways, an implementation conference, a conference whose actions would facilitate the implementation of the agreements of the other four l990s conferences.

It will be for history to judge whether the articulations contained in the agreed platform for Action will lead to the remaining changes necessary to achieve the goal. I am convinced that it will. A first test will actually occur this year.

When you have had a conference this large, you are tempted to say "well we've done our work, now we can all relax." But you can also say, "let's make the mobilization continue." The question is whether we will be able to use the instrumentality of the United Nations to see to it that the some 125 pages of actions will actually be taken. I am convinced they will, maybe not as visibly as one would like since most of the actions attempt to make rather fundamental changes in society, but certainly in ways that we will all in due course be able to measure.

City Summit--Health

Wally N'Dow
Secretary General (Habitat II)

This symposium has been convened to assess the role and viability of global conferences sponsored by the United Nations, a subject in which I have more than a passing interest. As Secretary-General of Habitat 11, in just a few months I will be presiding over the last major UN world conference of this century, the "City Summit."

The first thing that I might observe in relation to any UN Conference these days is that there is a new harshness visible in the international system. There is a growing number of critics of global conclaves, global organizations, global trade, and global law. These skeptics have arisen as the economies of individual nations have faltered in the face of a globalized economy as well as regional integration: both factors that have shrunk the boundaries of national sovereignty.

But another problem may be that organizations like the United Nations have tended to concentrate their resources more on issues of war and peace than on human welfare, despite the fact that, in the post Cold War era, it is the economic and social agenda that more and more preoccupies nations. The critics who focus on this point are, in my view, right. The most recent UN conferences, then, can be seen as a response to these concerns - as a way of repositioning the United Nations to establish a new legitimacy among its member states by focusing on questions of human capital.

In fact, the extraordinary continuum of conferences that has marked the last six years has dramatically extended the UN's reach in these issues. From the Children's Summit in New York City in 1990, to the Rio Summit on Environment and Development in 1992, to the Vienna Conference on Human Rights in l99X, to the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development and Development in 1994, to the Copenhagen Social Summit and the Beijing Women-s Conference in 1995, these conferences are rewriting the economic and social agenda of the United Nations - and the world for the new millennium.

Our own conference, Habitat Il, has direct connections to the earlier ones. By the year 2000, almost half of the earth's people will inhabit urban areas; by 2025, that statistic will rise to two thirds. It is no wonder that Habitat II thus encapsulates the themes from the past conferences, for all are powerfully tied into our urban environment. Istanbul, in short, is where the challenges all come home.

How else do we protect the rights of women and children if we do not do so at the city and town level where growing numbers of them now dwell? How do we make it possible for all human beings to express their humanity if we cannot assure their physical security in urban settings? How can we talk about human rights and democracy at an international level if we do not address these questions at the community level?

Habitat II, as you know, has two overall major goals: first, the provision of adequate shelter for all, meaning affordable housing, including security of tenure and supply of basic amenities; and, second, sustainable development on an urbanizing planet, meaning the establishment of local "Agendas 21" all over the globe that will allow multi sectoral and multi actor initiatives in our urban environment.

Habitat Il also has some special unprecedented features that no other UN global meeting has ever had. First, there is a new element of democratization in our conference process itself. The traditional UN approach to conferences has been that the member states decide on a conference to which they dispatch their high level delegates to debate and address the questions at hand.

Habitat II, for the first time, is opening itself up to nonmember state participants. This is happening under a new rule mandated last Fall by the General Assembly. It is Rule 61, which allows the captains of local governmental entities and the leaders of nongovernmental organizations and the officials of the private sector to take part in the debate in Istanbul. Though they will not have a direct vote, they will be able to make a signal contribution in ideas. This is a big step forward, and I think that the world of international conferences will never be the same again.

We are also making a strong effort to assure that our partners at Istanbul hold their own forums during the Conference and make their own proposals directly to Habitat II. We are especially pleased that individuals from the business sector will convene an assembly at Istanbul.

Twenty years ago, when Habitat I was held in Vancouver, the private sector did not play much of a role. Frankly, it was looked upon with great suspicion, reflecting many of the international tensions of the Cold War era. Today that reality has changed. Today people understand that the private sector is essential to the building of decent, livable dwellings, to the improvement of services, to the repairing of a decayed infrastructure, and to the renewal of our cities. In short, we look to the private sector to make a major contribution to Habitat II.

Of equal importance is the involvement of the non governmental and community-based sector. The NGO and Community Based Organization groups will, even as the private sector, also convene a common forum in Istanbul, thus representing a fundamental articulation of the philosophy of Habitat II - namely, a deep belief in engagement by peoples and governments at the neighborhood level. The NGOs and the Community Based Organizations, together with the private sector, have been earlier participants in the preparatory and planning process. We are being enriched and deepened by the presence of these grass roots organizations at our Conference.

I believe that Habitat II will be both a symbolic and a substantive reminder to the world community of the importance of these UN Conferences - but also of the growing participation of previously uninvolved partners. This will widen and enlarge the UN's constituency. And it will also reaffirm the fact that we are, today, residents of a global village, all of whose peoples are ineluctably connected with all other people, no matter what their religion, ethnicity, class, race or sexual orientation.

We have to work together to solve our mutual problems - whether they be issues of migration, drugs, homelessness, epidemics, pollution, traffic - all concentrated as never before in our burgeoning urban centers. All transcend borders and require that we come together even more tightly to devise common solutions.

In short, we cannot afford to isolate ourselves. What happens in one region of the world will surely have an impact on the other regions of our earth. The universal reality of today is that no one city, no one country can truly act alone and forgo consultation with others. That is why UN global conferences are so necessary, if not indispensable, if we are to fulfill the Charter's goal of "a better life in larger freedom." In achieving it, the UN conferences may be viewed as our road map to the future.

Overview

Paul M. Kennedy
J. Richardson Dilworth Professor of History
Yale University

Those of you who have read our report on The United Nations in its Second Half-Century (The Report of the Independent Working Group on the Future of the United Nations, a Ford Foundation Publication) will know that we welcomed the holding of the UN Global Conferences and described them as a significant advance upon the original UN system.

There are four reasons why this enterprise is to be welcomed. First of all, each one of these conferences has, in its turn, focused upon a single transcendent issue of great importance to the global community - population, environment, human rights, and the rest. This rarely happens, because most of the time the organs and agencies of the UN - whether it be the General Assembly, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC), the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) - have to deal with a dozen problems simultaneously. The conferences have focus.

Secondly, the conferences have dramatically raised the profile of the UN among many individuals and groups. The idea of large numbers of delegates, NGO reps, and experts crossing the globe to debate the environment at Rio or women at Beijing is much more newsworthy and colorful than regular General Assembly discussions. This is good publicity for the UN; it shows it is concerned with people's vital, everyday needs.

Thirdly, it has involved many, many people who are not government officials, politicians, or administrators. They reflect, in a way, the Charter's first words - "We, the peoples of the United Nations..." It was good to watch the excitement of so many individuals who were preparing to go off to a Global Conference, either as a delegate or an NGO participant.

In other words, the series of conferences filled a number of gaps. They offered a popular, global assembly in contrast to the "governments-only" nature of the UN's principal organs. They offered focus, and the prospect of action - making up, I'm sorry to say, for the deficiencies of the present Economic and Social Council and the General Assembly itself. They drew the attention of hundreds of millions of people to the UN's role in non-military, non Security Council issues. They offered a counterpiece to Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia.

Fourthly, and finally, the conferences made actual achievements in many areas. By negotiation and agreement on the statements issued, by fixing targets, and by setting up monitoring bodies and mechanisms with interagency cooperation, these global meetings ensured there was follow-up, and progress. The Rio conference, for example, caused many governments to re examine, and alter, their environmental policies.

What of the criticisms? I believe the issue of how much they cost has already been answered. Because of contributions by the host country, the cost to the world organization or to the U.S. taxpayer if that's your concern has been small.

Were there too many of them? I believe that each conference topic deserved to be done, but perhaps they took place at too-frequent intervals. Copenhagen, Cairo, Beijing seemed to be coming every couple of months.

The largest criticism concerns the very populist nature of these events. The public exposure and debate over sensitive issues, the activism of the NGOs, caused traditional authorities to feel their powers, their sovereignties, were being challenged, and by a group of activist organizations with a Western, liberal agenda who might not be representative of the prevailing political mood of the countries they came from or, especially, of sentiments in the developing world. That unease was certainly in evidence at Rio. By Copenhagen and Cairo, though, I sensed much of it has eased. Still, it remains a sensitive point.

What of the future? I doubt if we shall see more global conferences, at least in the short to medium term, after Habitat II, even if there remain issues like youth unemployment worldwide and what to do with it, that call for global debate, and action. Still, a rest from global UN conferences might not be a bad thing either, provided there is good follow up, monitoring, and compliance.

Finally, one idea that might be given further consideration is to alter the pattern and nature of General Assembly meetings, so that in every other year it concentrates almost exclusively upon a single important aspect of the UN's social, economic and human rights agenda. If such General Assembly sessions could also permit presentations by NGOs and other interested parties, the primary organ itself might recapture some of the focus, the direction and the popular attention that was achieved in the Global conferences. Were this to happen over the next few years, as the General Assembly considers structural reforms, the results of the global conferences might turn out to be even more important than their creators imagined.

This symposium was held on the occasion of Habitat lI's Prep Com 3 which took place at IJN headquarters in February 1996.

The Ralph Bunche Institute gratefully acknowledges the support and assistance of Dr. Wally N'Dow, Secretary-General of Habitat 11, Mr. Robert 1. Schiffer and members of the New York office of the United Nations Centre for Human Settlements in organizing this Symposium.

The Institute also acknowledges support from the Helena Rubenstein Foundations and the Graduate School and University Center of the City University of New York.